John F.M. Gleeson , Kelsey Ludwig , Bryan J. Stiles , Stefan Piantella , Catharine McNab , Sue Cotton , Madeleine I. Fraser , Mario Alvarez-Jimenez , Amity Watson , Elizabeth Fraser , David L. Penn
{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis of family-based interventions for early psychosis: Carer and patient outcomes","authors":"John F.M. Gleeson , Kelsey Ludwig , Bryan J. Stiles , Stefan Piantella , Catharine McNab , Sue Cotton , Madeleine I. Fraser , Mario Alvarez-Jimenez , Amity Watson , Elizabeth Fraser , David L. Penn","doi":"10.1016/j.schres.2025.01.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Previous reviews have indicated that family interventions in early psychosis are beneficial for patients and family caregivers. Given recent developments in research and service provision an updated review is warranted.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of family intervention trials in the first 5 years after psychosis onset. We identified randomized controlled trials that reported outcomes for family members and extracted available outcomes in relation to identified patients.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We screened 8737 abstracts and 177 full text papers, resulting in 36 for extraction. We found significant pooled treatment effects for family interventions for carer psychological distress (Hedges <em>g</em> = 0.35), carer burden (Hedges <em>g</em> = −0.68), positive and negative carer appraisals (Hedges <em>g</em> = 0.20, <em>g</em> = −0.21), and components of expressed emotion (critical comments and emotional overinvolement) compared with care as usual (Hedges <em>g</em> = −0.81, −0.92). For patients we found a moderate pooled effect for reduced rates of hospitalization compared with care as usual (Hedges <em>g</em> = −0.52). The effects for carer burden were maintained for studies in China, but not in other settings combined. The effects for hospitalization were maintained for multicomponent interventions but not when psychoeducation was the sole component. There was evidence of significant study heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment indicated that deviations from intended treatment were most frequently rated as the weakest domain.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Family interventions for early psychosis benefit both family carers and their relatives diagnosed with psychosis when compared with usual care. Future research should further clarify the effective components and investigate innovations in cultural sensitivity, peer support and digital modes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21417,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Research","volume":"276 ","pages":"Pages 57-78"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996425000064","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Previous reviews have indicated that family interventions in early psychosis are beneficial for patients and family caregivers. Given recent developments in research and service provision an updated review is warranted.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of family intervention trials in the first 5 years after psychosis onset. We identified randomized controlled trials that reported outcomes for family members and extracted available outcomes in relation to identified patients.
Results
We screened 8737 abstracts and 177 full text papers, resulting in 36 for extraction. We found significant pooled treatment effects for family interventions for carer psychological distress (Hedges g = 0.35), carer burden (Hedges g = −0.68), positive and negative carer appraisals (Hedges g = 0.20, g = −0.21), and components of expressed emotion (critical comments and emotional overinvolement) compared with care as usual (Hedges g = −0.81, −0.92). For patients we found a moderate pooled effect for reduced rates of hospitalization compared with care as usual (Hedges g = −0.52). The effects for carer burden were maintained for studies in China, but not in other settings combined. The effects for hospitalization were maintained for multicomponent interventions but not when psychoeducation was the sole component. There was evidence of significant study heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment indicated that deviations from intended treatment were most frequently rated as the weakest domain.
Conclusions
Family interventions for early psychosis benefit both family carers and their relatives diagnosed with psychosis when compared with usual care. Future research should further clarify the effective components and investigate innovations in cultural sensitivity, peer support and digital modes.
背景:以往的综述表明,早期精神病的家庭干预对患者和家庭照顾者都是有益的。鉴于最近在研究和提供服务方面的发展,有必要进行最新的审查。方法:我们对精神病发病后前5年的家庭干预试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们确定了报告家庭成员结果的随机对照试验,并提取了与已确定患者相关的可用结果。结果:共筛选摘要8737篇,全文论文177篇,提取36篇。我们发现,与正常护理(Hedges g = -0.81, -0.92)相比,家庭干预对照顾者心理困扰(Hedges g = 0.35)、照顾者负担(Hedges g = -0.68)、积极和消极的照顾者评价(Hedges g = 0.20, g = -0.21)和表达情绪成分(批评性评论和情绪过度投入)的综合治疗效果显著。对于患者,我们发现与常规护理相比,住院率降低有中等的综合效应(Hedges g = -0.52)。在中国的研究中,对照顾者负担的影响得到了维持,但在其他环境中则没有。多成分干预对住院治疗的影响维持不变,但当心理教育是唯一成分时则不是。有证据表明研究存在显著的异质性。偏倚风险评估表明,偏离预期治疗最常被评为最弱的领域。结论:与常规护理相比,家庭干预对早期精神病患者的家庭照顾者及其亲属均有好处。未来的研究应进一步明确有效成分,并研究文化敏感性、同伴支持和数字模式方面的创新。
期刊介绍:
As official journal of the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) Schizophrenia Research is THE journal of choice for international researchers and clinicians to share their work with the global schizophrenia research community. More than 6000 institutes have online or print (or both) access to this journal - the largest specialist journal in the field, with the largest readership!
Schizophrenia Research''s time to first decision is as fast as 6 weeks and its publishing speed is as fast as 4 weeks until online publication (corrected proof/Article in Press) after acceptance and 14 weeks from acceptance until publication in a printed issue.
The journal publishes novel papers that really contribute to understanding the biology and treatment of schizophrenic disorders; Schizophrenia Research brings together biological, clinical and psychological research in order to stimulate the synthesis of findings from all disciplines involved in improving patient outcomes in schizophrenia.